People v. One 1933 Buick Sedan
Before: Sturtevant
STURTEVANT, J.
The plaintiff brought this action under the provisions of division X, chapter 7, article I of the Health and Safety Code to obtain a judgment of forfeiture. The action was tried by the trial court sitting without a jury. Later it made findings against the plaintiff and from the judgment entered on the findings the plaintiff appealed. The findings included the following:
“V.
“That it is true that the said H. E. Hauger and the said General Motors Acceptance Corporation at the time of said sale and the creation of said conditional sales contract had no knowledge that the said automobile was intended to be used or would be used thereafter in the unlawful transportation of narcotics.
“VI.
“That it is true that said conditional sales contract was signed and entered into by H. E. Hauger after a reasonable investigation by the said H. E. Hauger and General Motors Acceptance Corporation of the moral responsibility, character and reputation of the purchaser thereof, towit, the said William Steele.”
All parties concede that the substantive law, on the subject of forfeiture, has been settled. But the case presents questions of practice and procedure. The plaintiff contends that those two findings are not sustained by the evidence and that the judgment should be reversed. In section 11620 it is provided: “The claimant of any right, title, or interest in the vehicle may prove his lien, mortgage, or conditional sales contract to be
bona fide
and that his right, title, or interest was created after a reasonable investigation of the moral responsibility, character, and reputation of the purchaser, and
[484]
without any knowledge that the vehicle was being, or was to be, used for the purpose charged.” In brief said statute imposes on the claimant who would resist a forfeiture to prove that his title “ . . . was created (1) after a reasonable investigation of the moral responsibility, character, and reputation of the purchaser, (2) and without knowledge that the vehicle was being, or was to be, used for the purpose charged.” (Parentheses ours.)
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)